The Lowly Law Student

the musings and ramblings of a lawyer in progress

HOME DIGESTS REVIEWS ABOUT CONTACT

Dreamwork v Janiola (DIGEST)
Dreamwork v Janiola (DIGEST)

G.R. No. 184861; 30 June 2009

FACTS:

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 This case is a petition for the reversal of the decision on the suspension of the
criminal proceeding led by the petitioner in the MTC for the ground that there
is a presence of prejudicial question with respect to the civil case belatedly led
by the respondent.

The petitioner appealed to RTC but denied Dreamwork, through its President,
and Vice-President, led a Complaint Af davit against Janiola for violation of BP
22 at the Of ce of the City Prosecutor of Las Piñas City.

Correspondingly, the former also led a criminal information for violation of BP

22 against private respondent with the MTC, entitled People of the Philippines v.
Cleofe S. Janiola. On September 20, 2006, Janiola instituted a civil complaint
against petitioner for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement
between the parties, as well as for damages.

Thereafter, respondent led a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the Criminal

Case for the ground that private respondent claim that the civil case posed a
prejudicial question against the criminal case. Petitioner opposed the

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Respondent’s Motion to Suspend criminal proceeding based on juridical
question for the following grounds:

(1) there is no prejudicial question in this case as the rescission of the contract
upon which the bouncing checks were issued is a separate and distinct issue
from the issue of whether private respondent violated BP 22; and

(2) Section 7, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court states that one of the elements of a
prejudicial question is that “the previously instituted civil action involves an
issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action”; thus, this element is missing in this case, the criminal case having
preceded the civil case.

The MTC granted the Respondents Motion to Suspend Proceedings. Petitioner

appealed the Orders to the RTC but denied the petition. Hence, this petition
raised.

ISSUE:

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Whether or not the MTC or RTC Court erred in its discretion to suspend
proceedings in Criminal Case on the basis of “Prejudicial Question “, with
respect to the Civil Case belatedly led.

HELD:

This petition must be granted, pursuant to SEC. 7.Elements of prejudicial

question.

The elements of a prejudicial question are:

(a) the previously instituted civil action

involves an issue similar or intimately related
to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal
action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Under the amendment, a prejudicial question is understood in law as that which
must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a nal
judgment can be rendered in the criminal action. The civil action must be
instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action.

In this case, the Information was led with the Sandiganbayan ahead of the
complaint in Civil Case led by the State with the RTC. Thus, no prejudicial
question exists. The Resolution of the Civil Case Is Not Determinative of the
Prosecution of the Criminal Action. Even if the trial court in the civil case
declares that the construction agreement between the parties is void for lack of
consideration, this would not affect the prosecution of private respondent in the
criminal case. The fact of the matter is that private respondent issued checks that
were subsequently dishonored for insuf cient funds. It is this fact that is subject
of prosecution under BP 22.Therefore, it is clear that the second element
required for the existence of a prejudicial question, is absent. Thus, no
prejudicial question exists.

Share this:

 Twitter  Facebook
Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Like
Be the first to like this.

Related

BELTRAN v PEOPLE of the BP PHILIPPINES VS. CLARK MMDA v. Concerned Residents of

PHILIPPINES (DIGEST) TRADING CORP (DIGEST) Manila Bay (CASE DIGEST)
In "Digests" In "Digests" In "Digests"

thelowlylawstudent
November 26, 2017
Digests
1987 constitution, case digest, case digests, civil code, consti 1, consti digest,
constitutional law, digest, dreamwork v janiola digest, dreamworks v janiola case digest,
dreamworks v janiola digest, persons, persons and family relations, persons digest,
Philippine Law, political law, prejudicial question, statcon

Published by thelowlylawstudent
A lowly law student View more posts

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST

Grego v COMELEC (DIGEST) SHIPPING CART: Yay or Nay?

Leave a Reply
Enter your comment here...

TWITTER INSTAGRAM

The Lowly Law Student, WordPress.com.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD